Talk:Brahmi script

Removal of Parent system

The parent source of Brahmi Script is not confirmed to be Proto-Sinaitic script or Phoenician alphabet or Aramaic alphabet, it can also be indigenous, therefore there is no confirmed source of Brahmi Script, removal of entire parent system is advised, or at least put valid citations.

"Disputed" Semitic origin

From what I can see, the Semitic origin of the Brahmi script is the scholarly consensus. Whether it is a direct descendant, or simply inspired, and from which script specifically, does not have such a clear consensus, but the overall Semitic origin does. So, why is it listed as disputed in the infobox of this article as well as of most Brahmic scripts on Wikipedia? Isn't it WP:UNDUE to give that much weight to the fringe and with a clear nationalist agenda hypothesis of indigenous descent of Brahmi? TuxCrafting (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. Unfortunately, there is a whole army of Indian nationalist editors who will likely resist removing the undue weight given to the untenable indigenous origin theory. Metta79 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TuxCrafting: I personally think the question marks should be removed, and perhaps only a 'likely' added before Aramaic script (or after in brackets). The consensus among expert epigraphists is that it's primarily an Aramaic derivative. Metta79 (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is unreadable because of the paragraphs and paragraphs of meandering, repetitive content that has been added to try to give the impression that there is no consensus and that the indigenous origin theory is just as valid as any other. It would almost be easier to rewrite the entire thing from a clean slate than to try and wade through all this stuff. Linguifauna (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. The article, especially the origins section, sounds laughable to anyone who has actually any real expertise on the matter. The fact is the "indigenous" theory of the origins of Brahmi is nonsense and against the scholarly consensus. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I did some factoring on these notes, not changing their substance because I was not informed enough, but this was my understanding. Remsense诉 10:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the note in the infobox claiming the Semitic origin is not "universally accepted" (neither is spherical Earth, but it is the academic consensus). Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

But it is still debated that how Kharoshthi, Aramaic (and according to some theory Phoenician and Greek) had its effect on origin of Brahmi - It is very unlikely to be a simple linear descent. I have added the reference that talks about this nuance (Salmon 1998) on info box. I think This reference should remain. Although Semitic Origin can indeed be called present Academic Consensus, direct descendence from Aramaic certainly not. 103.94.134.112 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I made sure first to reread the relevant passage from Salmon 1998. Now, let's look at how we're trying to interpret and represent it. In the infobox, you've attached Likely, but see (Salmon 1998:19–30) to the claim of Brahmi's descent from Aramaic. Here, you've articulated that

1. a Semitic origin for Brahmi is presently the academic consensus.
2. Brahmi's direct descent from Aramaic is presently not the academic consensus.

Salmon's positions appear to be the following:

1. An autonomous origin for Brahmi is "purely speculative, and lacks any hard evidence or documentary support".
2. Evidence for direct Greek influence on Brahmi's development is "not strong".
3. In hindsight, all evidence for direct Karosthi influence on Brahmi's development actually turns out to be much stronger evidence that both Brahmi and Karosthi were derivatives of some Semitic script.
4. Likewise, every piece of comparative evidence for a South Semitic origin is ultimately comprehensively stronger evidence for a North Semitic origin. (So far, there are no major supporters remaining for positions in points 1–4 among academics)
5. That essentially leaves two North Semitic scripts for a direct ancestor, if we are to determine one: Phoenician and Aramaic. Georg Bühler represents any major case for Phoenician, and Salmon summarizes this case as weaker than Aramaic's: derivation from Aramaic is stated as not only being more graphetically straightforward and plausible, but also more plausible on "historical, geographical, and chronological" grounds.
6. There are two primary pieces of evidence presented as plausible demerits to a specifically Aramaic origin:
7. The existence of Karosthi, a script that would have a very similar origin in space and time if the hypothesis is true, is also a script that is very distinct from Brahmi. This is hard to explain in isolation.
8. Even if correspondences are clear and compelling, it is also clear that scholars frequently characterize this generally-accepted derivation of Brahmi from Semitic as meaningfully less direct than say, Phoenician → Greek.

I'll reproduce Salmon's concluding paragraph in full for posterity:

“ In conclusion, there are strong systemic and paleographic indications that the Brahmi script derived from a Semitic prototype, which, mainly on historical grounds, is most likely to have been Aramaic. However, the details of this problem remain to be worked out, and in any case it is unlikely that a complete letter-by-letter derivation will ever be possible; for Brahmi may have been more of an adaptation and remodeling, rather than a direct derivation, of the presumptive Semitic prototype, perhaps under the influence of a preexisting Indian tradition of phonetic analysis. However, the Semitic hypothesis is not so strong as to rule out the remote possibility that further discoveries could drastically change the picture. In particular, a relationship of some kind, probably partial or indirect, with the protohistoric Indus Valley script should not be considered entirely out of the question.

”

Now, let's return to your statements and footnote: B) would imply that derivation from Phoenecian is also seen as plausible. I have not seen any evidence, Salmon or otherwise, that this is a position held by a sizable number of contemperary scholars. All that's left is to wring one's hands about how "direct" descent could be muddied, and I do not see that as justified. Other influences do not make direct descent—that is, the more-or-less comprehensive appropriation of both shape and orthographic notions—something else. It doesn't matter if our first literates were taught directly by Arameans, or snuck glances at Aramean traders while piecing the script back together letter by letter—in this sense it is clear according to the most plausible theory, that it was functionally a derivation.

Therefore, the footnote muddies the water from four smaller ponds (autochthonous, Greek, other Semitic) in a fundamentally synthetic way, which insinuates instead any one poses a popular alternative to Aramaic among experts, reaching a level of skepticism that Salmon does not. Aramaic does seem to be the consensus—even if there are open questions, there are no compelling alternatives, and the questions that exist are insufficient to dismiss the Aramaic hypothesis in addition to the others. Pointing to Salmon's work to justify a "likely, but" cutout is not justified, given what he actually said and how he said it. Remsense ‥ 论 21:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

influence on Conan Doyle

Brahmi was at one time referred to in English as the "pin-man" script, likening the characters to stick figures.

Hm, could it have inspired the Adventure of the Dancing Men? —Tamfang (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Add "Dhamma Lipi" as an Alternative Name for Brahmi Script

"I propose adding 'Dhamma Lipi' as an alternative historical name for the Brahmi script in the article. Earliest inscriptions, particularly from Ashoka’s era, use the script for his dhamma reference to the script of the edicts. Additionally, there has been critical discussion among historians about the origin and naming of the script, with scholars arguing that 'Brahmi' was a later attribution. This edit would offer readers a broader historical context. I'd appreciate any feedback on including 'Dhamma Lipi' as an alternative name." For the healthy discussion here I am giving here following article -

[1]https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/allahabad/script-used-in-ashokan-pillars-is-dhammlipi-not-brahmi-says-scholor/articleshow/52433957.cms

[2]https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/renaming-of-brahmi-script-to-dhammalipi-divides-teachers-historians-in-maharashtra-6504484/

[3]https://www.academia.edu/42136937/Dhammalipi_the_original_name_of_Ashokan_script 202.142.70.66 (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I would likely oppose including the alternative name in the infobox, as it is proposed as an ancient name that is no longer used; thus, it is not a key fact for readers per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. That leaves the question of whether it should be mentioned in the article at all. The two news articles aren't considered reliable sources for this claim for our purposes: news articles aren't in general. We would accept a scholarly article ostensibly like your third link purports to be, but there's no indication that this one was actually published in a peer-reviewed journal, and I cannot find any other evidence that this is a position held by subject experts. Remsense ‥ 论 06:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I like your perspective regarding the inclusion of Dhamma Lipi in the infobox, but I respectfully disagree. While it is true that Dhamma Lipi is an ancient term associated with a script that is no longer actively used, its historical significance remains vital for readers seeking to understand the context of Ashoka’s inscriptions.

Dhamma Lipi is not just a relic of a dead language; it represents a crucial aspect of the linguistic and cultural heritage of South Asia. Scholars continue to reference this term in their work, illustrating its relevance in the study of Brahmi script and its historical applications. By including Dhamma Lipi in the infobox, we provide readers with essential context that connects contemporary understanding with historical practices.

Multiple reputable sources, including The Times of India and Indian Express, reference Dhammalipi as an alternative or preferred name, particularly in connection with Ashoka’s inscriptions, which historically spread the principles of Dhamma. While these sources may not be academic journals, they are respected publications citing scholars and experts, thus adding valuable modern interpretations to the historical context. Additionally, it is well-documented that Ashoka’s use of the Brahmi script in his inscriptions through South Asia was closely tied to the propagation of his Dhamma, underscoring the significance of Dhammalipi as a relevant term. Callmehelper (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't respond to other editors using ChatGPT. That it failed to understand the point I was making is one thing, but it is generally disrespectful to expect others to spend their time engaging with arguments you didn't write to begin with. Remsense ‥ 论 07:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't try to act like the English encyclopaedia. These all are my point. I am from non-English speaking background. That doens't mean I don't know how to write or response to anyone in hindi. I just give my Hindi translation to ChatGPT for good translation.

I am always on the side of using Dhammalipi as the alternative term for Brahmi Script. I have a valid reason for it which I told you before.

Give me a single peer reviewed journals which suggests not to use dhammalipi as alternative for Brahmi script. Or any variable source that suggests not to use dhammalipi for Brahmi script. Any logical arguments which is against using of dhammalipi as another name for Brahmi script is available then I will be silent. Callmehelper (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, but you can't prove a negative. That's like me saying "find a single peer-reviewed journal that suggests not to use Callmehelper's script for the Brahmi script". No such thing would exist. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose "Dhamma Lipi" means "Dharma inscriptions" and is the term used by Ashoka to refer broadly to his own inscriptions throughout South Asia. It does not refer to any script in particular. Actually, Ashoka used several different scripts for his "Dharma inscriptions" ("Dhamma Lipi"), or "Edicts of Ashoka": Brahmi mostly, but also Kharosthi, Greek and Aramaic. See Singh, Upinder (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Pearson Education India. p. 351. ISBN 978-81-317-1677-9. In Major Pillar Edict Nb 6, Ashoka writes: "When I had been annointed twelve years, rescripts of morality ("dharhma-lipi") were caused to be written ("likhapita") by me for the welfare and happiness of the people." see Inscriptions of Asoka. New Edition by E. Hultzsch. p. 129.[4]. Admittedly though, "Brahmi Script" is only a conventional name, but it is accepted as the standard name for the script. It is also sometimes called "Ashokan script". पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)